How is it that in the beginning in Genesis 2 when God created the 1st Adam and Eden....

[SilenceInMotion]

Aspen, if you completely allegorize the Genesis account of creation, then where does the line of demarcation set up? If Genesis is a mythic tale, then so obviously would be stories such as Noah, Jonah, etc likely all the way to the miracles of Jesus in the NT. If, then, that is the case, then the logical outflow of that is that when the stories were mentioned in the New Testament, the writers were either totally ignorant of this reality and viewed the stories as true, or they deliberately perpetuated the myth.

If the former, then my initial question stands, because it's difficult to argue divine inspiration. If the latter, then you are effectively illustrating a deceiver god or just a book written by men with no real concept of God, who also didn't seem to have all too much to say or do.

I'm not picking on you or anything, but I don't see a solid line to hold with this approach, as the ambiguity doesn't seem to leave a hill to turn, defend, and hold the line on. In all honesty, I would submit that this is why the mainline denominations are hemorrhaging members. That's not to say that necessarily anyone whom holds this view will inevitably lose faith, but I think it drops the bottom out for a number of perfectly smart and sincere people. Strip miracles, and you're left with a moral figure who the next savvy politician, benevolent star, or charismatic athlete could potentially fit.

The creation accounts in Genesis are not explicitly part of the rest of Genesis. The original author thought it best to put those accounts in the front, as appropriately they should be, and then go from there. The accounts were oral traditions, told well before they were actually written.

We can go on and talk about divine inspiration, but the fact remains that God is not always literal (in fact He more often makes ample use of symbolism). When Christ was on Earth, he spoke a lot in parables. The language of God tends to relate to the listerner/writer rather then taking on a literal stance.
The book of Isaiah for example is poetic, and Isaiah was in fact a poet by trade. The best way to interpret God's message is to understand the writer's perception, which is quite different to a modern man in relevance of the author who, in Isaiah's case, lived in 700BC.

The way I interpret Genesis is that it is a symbolic and moral history. It is divine knowledge, infallibly spoken, but is true for both the ancient man as well as the modern. One cannot deny the similarities of the Big Bang and sequence of evolution to the Bible. That should be enough for one to realize that they are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Rex]

The way I interpret Genesis is that it is a symbolic and moral history. It is divine knowledge, infallibly spoken, but is true for both the ancient man as well as the modern. One cannot deny the similarities of the Big Bang and sequence of evolution to the Bible. That should be enough for one to realize that they are two sides of the same coin.

What it does prove is mans understanding has at this point affirmed the word, not the other way around.

Now If the tern big BANG would also reflect the truth "and there was light" no bang is heard in space, as well it is observed. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good;
Expansion is a better term IMO, Observed from outside I might add, respect and tremble at the word SIM

Isaiah 66:1-2

Thus says the Lord:

“Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?
2 For all those things My hand has made,
And all those things exist,”
Says the Lord.
“But on this one will I look:
On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
And who trembles at My word.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

What it does prove is mans understanding has at this point affirmed the word, not the other way around.

Now If the tern big BANG would also reflect the truth "and there was light" no bang is heard in space, as well it is observed. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good;
Expansion is a better term IMO, Observed from outside I might add, respect and tremble at the word SIM

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. It's simply a good alternative in wording to illustrate the theory. The explanation in physics is that before existence there was nothing but a singularity, or an infinitely small point, which expanded.

This is what the Church warns about science and theory: it's okay to study the universe, but to not question it's origins because that is the work of God.

This is what young Earth creationists warn about science and theory: science is the Devil.


I prefer to go with the one that doesn't sound ridiculous.

 

[aspen]

Aspen, if you completely allegorize the Genesis account of creation, then where does the line of demarcation set up? If Genesis is a mythic tale, then so obviously would be stories such as Noah, Jonah, etc likely all the way to the miracles of Jesus in the NT. If, then, that is the case, then the logical outflow of that is that when the stories were mentioned in the New Testament, the writers were either totally ignorant of this reality and viewed the stories as true, or they deliberately perpetuated the myth.

We certainly have a different way of looking at the Bible. It seems to me - if I am wrong, please clarify - that you are using a distinctly Western standard to determine the worth of the Creation story. Instead of looking for the underlying truth, you are evaluating the purity/worth of the story by forcing it to stand up to the Western standard of being a literal account. IMO, this is not a historical standard for truth nor is it necessary to value truth in the story today. The important elements in the story include the relationship we have with ourselves, each other, and God. The rest of the story supports the sovereignty of God, which is fine, but is not the critical message we take from the story. 'Once upon a time' is not the important message of any fairy tale either (and I am not comparing the creation story to a fairy tale - I am simply illustrating a similarity in the use of language)

Furthermore, I think your need to find a line in the story between literal and allegory is unnecessary and takes effort away from apply the important truths of the story to our lives and relationships. Knowing that we hide behind the skins God made clothes out of for us (I believe it is a symbol for our egos or false selves) means much more to me than spending time trying to convince myself and others that Adam really named every animal, including the dinosaurs or that the plants were created without a sun. There is nothing wrong with accepting a bit of mystery in the story - I think we have tried to remove all mystery from the Bible and Christianity and even from God in an effort to legitimize our beliefs - to me, it speaks more to a need for control rather than faith.

As you can see, I value truth within many contexts, not just the literal. Even the moral of the story in Aseops Fables is still true even if animals do not really talk to each other or perform human behaviors, as portrayed in the stories.

One more point - language itself is a symbolic vehicle for communicating truth - even the most accurate, literal description of an event is a reduced account of what really happened - it is the nature of our existence to live with a great deal of inaccuracy and ambiguity.

If the former, then my initial question stands, because it's difficult to argue divine inspiration. If the latter, then you are effectively illustrating a deceiver god or just a book written by men with no real concept of God, who also didn't seem to have all too much to say or do.

God speaks through dreams, prayer, psalms, and parables - just to mention a few nonliteral methods of conveying messages - it does not mean that He is lying or that men are just pretending He is speaking. This brings up another point - perhaps the creation story is a revelation that took six days to convey.

I'm not picking on you or anything, but I don't see a solid line to hold with this approach, as the ambiguity doesn't seem to leave a hill to turn, defend, and hold the line on. In all honesty, I would submit that this is why the mainline denominations are hemorrhaging members. That's not to say that necessarily anyone whom holds this view will inevitably lose faith, but I think it drops the bottom out for a number of perfectly smart and sincere people. Strip miracles, and you're left with a moral figure who the next savvy politician, benevolent star, or charismatic athlete could potentially fit.

Well, I think mainline denominations are failing for many reasons. I do not feel picked on by you. Since I happen to believe that faith is measured by how comfortable we are with ambiguity, I have little problem with the idea of ambiguity in my relationship with God and the Bible and my relationships with others. I think it is an important part of our sanctification to embrace our powerlessness - we are weak and He is strong.

 

[forrestcupp]

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. It's simply a good alternative in wording to illustrate the theory. The explanation in physics is that before existence there was nothing but a singularity, or an infinitely small point, which expanded.

This is what the Church warns about science and theory: it's okay to study the universe, but to not question it's origins because that is the work of God.

This is what young Earth creationists warn about science and theory: science is the Devil.


I prefer to go with the one that doesn't sound ridiculous.

In my opinion, the Gap Theory does a great job of reconciling scientific findings with a literal interpretation of the creation account.

 

[veteran]

Scientists were making claims which contradicted the literal interpretation of Scripture. The Church issued that the Earth was the center of the universe to null anything that might lead people astray.
When Galileo discovered that objects orbited other objects in space, more specifically the moon's of Jupiter, this called into question if the Earth didn't orbit around other objects. In response to this, the Church had him recant his discovery as false.

The Church did this because they were going by the literal interpretation of scripture, and had an entire continent of brutal 16th century to maintain. The Inquisitions were done for the same exact reasons- to keep heresy from causing an uprising.


If people have a problem with that, cry a river, seriously. It was the 16th century. The same can go for the Crusades and everything else- the world wasn't the pipedream it tries to be now.

The Roman Church did that because of an ERRANT literal interpretation of The Bible, not just because of a literal interpretation. You're going way to the other extreme. The Book of Revelation is to be taken literally also, but that means understanding how symbology is being used to describe 'literal' events that are to come to pass.

In my opinion, the Gap Theory does a great job of reconciling scientific findings with a literal interpretation of the creation account.

Yes it does, and because of that it is pointing closer to the Truth of what really did happen, and how, but the why is not specifically given in the Genesis creation account, but it is given in other later Scripture for those who rightly divide God's Word like Paul told Timothy to do. What Paul showed in Romans 8 about it cannot be refuted.

 

[Rex]

The Roman Church did that because of an ERRANT literal interpretation of The Bible, not just because of a literal interpretation. You're going way to the other extreme. The Book of Revelation is to be taken literally also, but that means understanding how symbology is being used to describe 'literal' events that are to come to pass.

That is bending the word to fit modern scientific understanding, science provides some interesting facts as well.
This is what I share with people, I don't offer an explanation derived from space between words. It's long like sitting threw a collage lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw

People "non believers" are looking for evidence that supports the bible not a re-reading that supports science.
Secular people see threw the reinterpretation immediately understanding its your faith, they want science to prove the bible, can science make a case? I believe it can and has.

 

[HammerStone]

We certainly have a different way of looking at the Bible. It seems to me - if I am wrong, please clarify - that you are using a distinctly Western standard to determine the worth of the Creation story. Instead of looking for the underlying truth, you are evaluating the purity/worth of the story by forcing it to stand up to the Western standard of being a literal account. IMO, this is not a historical standard for truth nor is it necessary to value truth in the story today. The important elements in the story include the relationship we have with ourselves, each other, and God. The rest of the story supports the sovereignty of God, which is fine, but is not the critical message we take from the story. 'Once upon a time' is not the important message of any fairy
tale either (and I am not comparing the creation story to a fairy tale - I am simply illustrating a similarity in the use of language)

Well, in a sense we perhaps do. However, I'd label my method as hybrid because I do have a familiarity with at least the Eastern Orthodox treatment of both Gensis and the Bible as a whole. I am at least open to looking beyond the traditional Western enlightenment brand of thought. For example, I don't view Genesis as a scientific account of creation.

The problem I have with what you're saying here is that it's essentially anachronistic. The Early Church Fathers, for instance, held in majority and rather clearly that Adam and Eve were literal. The Apostles and writers of the NT at least held to the same notion, and I would cite passages such as where Jude talks about Enoch (7th descendant of Adam) and Paul cites the first man Adam. They may not have had the culture war battles we do over things, but this was an assumed truth. (There is an excellent article book review here that backs up this assertion, as I am not just pulling this out of thin air or following traditional talking points with no scholarship.) As such, traditionally there has been a distinguishing between true (substitute literal if you must, but that's not the best word here) story and something more along the lines of a parable or folktale.

The concept of relative truth is a postmodern device (and just as Western in orientation), and that is essentially what is at play here. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the idea you advocate is that the story is essentially a parable, true in the sense that it conveys true ideas, but fable in the sense that Adam and Eve were not actual people who lived, sinned, and died?

Furthermore, I think your need to find a line in the story between literal and allegory is unnecessary and takes effort away from apply the important truths of the story to our lives and relationships. Knowing that we hide behind the skins God made clothes out of for us (I believe it is a symbol for our egos or false selves) means much more to me than spending time trying to convince myself and others that Adam really named every animal, including the dinosaurs or that the plants were created without a sun. There is nothing wrong with accepting a bit of mystery in the story - I think we have tried to remove all mystery from the Bible and Christianity and even from God in an effort to legitimize our beliefs - to me, it speaks more to a need for control rather than faith.

I don't know about that; my argument would be that the collective text known as the Bible necessitates that it be true. For example, the first man Adam being a literary construct diminishes the last Adam title given to Jesus (I Corinthians 15:45). If you read the former allegorically, then why does the latter need to be real in order to work.

I am, actually, quite fine with ambiguity, but there are times when ambiguity may destroy things, especially if that ambiguity is constructed in a place where authorial intent was not such.

 

[Rex]

Yes it does, and because of that it is pointing closer to the Truth of what really did happen, and how, but the why is not specifically given in the Genesis creation account, but it is given in other later Scripture for those who rightly divide God's Word like Paul told Timothy to do. What Paul showed in Romans 8 about it cannot be refuted.

No it doesn't answer anything, all it is IMO is an exorcise in reading into scripture what may or may not be there "speculation".
After this is accomplished it's only a skip and a jump and your having people read between the lines in other verses, as your doing now.

Get some scientific evidence, people "the unsaved" are looking for an answer to the question of 6 days, how does the gap theory address the 6 day statement? It doesn't, your simply leading the saved into a re-reading of scripture, leaving the 6 day question unanswered. But affirming a truth, great expanses of time are observed. So what is the answer? Watch the video and with a little study, If your not familiar with the terms or working of physics, you will have something to say about the 6 day creation not being in conflict with observed billions of years.

IMO the end will be a complete reinterpretation of Gen. That will lead people to believe by father hood salvation or election is achieved, by father hood damnation is guaranteed. In the end It's a nice explanation or argument for Calvinism if you can get people to read between lines and listen to speculation.

 

[veteran]

That is bending the word to fit modern scientific understanding, science provides some interesting facts as well.
This is what I share with people, I don't offer an explanation derived from space between words. It's long like sitting threw a collage lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw


People "non believers" are looking for evidence that supports the bible not a re-reading that supports science.
Secular people see threw the reinterpretation immediately understanding its your faith, they want science to prove the bible, can science make a case? I believe it can and has.

Understanding allegory and symbology that God uses in His Word is a bending The Word to fit scientific understanding?? That's nuts. You don't have a clue of what you're talking about, you're just rambling with no direction like a little child.

No it doesn't answer anything, all it is IMO is an exorcise in reading into scripture what may or may not be there "speculation".
After this is accomplished it's only a skip and a jump and your having people read between the lines in other verses, as your doing now.

Get some scientific evidence, people "the unsaved" are looking for an answer to the question of 6 days, how does the gap theory address the 6 day statement? It doesn't, your simply leading the saved into a re-reading of scripture, leaving the 6 day question unanswered. But affirming a truth, great expanses of time are observed. So what is the answer? Watch the video and with a little study, If your not familiar with the terms or working of physics, you will have something to say about the 6 day creation not being in conflict with observed billions of years.

IMO the end will be a complete reinterpretation of Gen. That will lead people to believe by father hood salvation or election is achieved, by father hood damnation is guaranteed. In the end It's a nice explanation or argument for Calvinism if you can get people to read between lines and listen to speculation.

God's Word is not going to change, but I gurantee you, your tune will, in time, when you have come out that ignorance.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The problem I have with what you're saying here is that it's essentially anachronistic. The Early Church Fathers, for instance, held in majority and rather clearly that Adam and Eve were literal. The Apostles and writers of the NT at least held to the same notion, and I would cite passages such as where Jude talks about Enoch (7th descendant of Adam) and Paul cites the first man Adam. They may not have had the culture war battles we do over things, but this was an assumed truth. (There is an excellent article book review here that backs up this assertion, as I am not just pulling this out of thin air or following traditional talking points with no scholarship.) As such, traditionally there has been a distinguishing between true (substitute literal if you must, but that's not the best word here) story and something more along the lines of a parable or folktale.

The concept of relative truth is a postmodern device (and just as Western in orientation), and that is essentially what is at play here. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the idea you advocate is that the story is essentially a parable, true in the sense that it conveys true ideas, but fable in the sense that Adam and Eve were not actual people who lived, sinned, and died?

John probably took the Apocalypse a bit literal as well. After all, what else did he have to go on? The writers of the Bible, and the Church fathers and everyone else, were not all-knowing demigods, and Jesus only used Adam and Eve as a moral palette in his teachings.

One could only imagine God trying to teach ancient men about evolution and the Big Bang. What would they profit from knowing such things? It is vain knowledge for an ancient person. God never taught gravity or that the Earth was a sphere either. If you look at ancient diagrams, you see the Earth and the heavens resemble something like a snowglobe.

 

[Rex]

Understanding allegory and symbology that God uses in His Word is a bending The Word to fit scientific understanding?? That's nuts. You don't have a clue of what you're talking about, you're just rambling with no direction like a little child.



God's Word is not going to change, but I gurantee you, your tune will, in time, when you have come out that ignorance.

What brilliant theological skills you have.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. It's simply a good alternative in wording to illustrate the theory. The explanation in physics is that before existence there was nothing but a singularity, or an infinitely small point, which expanded.

This is what the Church warns about science and theory: it's okay to study the universe, but to not question it's origins because that is the work of God.

This is what young Earth creationists warn about science and theory: science is the Devil.


I prefer to go with the one that doesn't sound ridiculous.

Spoken by a true infidel.

Anyone who doesn't believe in a literal creation over specific days as stated in Genesis &/or thinks it's an allegory, has shown they're not born of the spirit of God and don't know Jesus in the spiritual sense. Even the Jews believe in a literal creation albeit they date it's beginning a little later(LXX) - compared to evolutionists - than those who have used the genealogies in the Hebrew bible to get it's approximate date.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Spoken by a true infidel.

Well science is the devil after all, so I must be :lol:

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Well science is the devil after all, so I must be :lol:

What you people are really barking on about is not science, but the "philosophy of science'. Presupposition is the foundation of your man-made belief. The actual 'scientific method' doesn't prove any of those hypothesis/religious beliefs about the beginning of ...

It's mere speculation fueled by religious zeal, so as to sound reputable and shut God out of the picture.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

What you people are really barking on about is not science, but the "philosophy of science'. Presupposition is the foundation of your man-made belief. The actual 'scientific method' doesn't prove any of those hypothesis/religious beliefs about the beginning of ...

It's mere speculation fueled by religious zeal, so as to sound reputable and shut God out of the picture.

The Creation events were oral traditions before they were written. From a literal perspective, I would wager that they were originally relayed through Noah to his family during or after the Flood. It also seems applicable that Noah would be told those accounts by God in that Noah would be responsible for the 're-creation' of Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

From the theistic evolutionist perspective, I would wager that the sequence of God's creations being so similar to the sequence of evolution of both the Big Bang and evolution are not a coincidence.

I would also wager that Noah's dove, who was sent out in search for land, corresponds with the story as a symbol of peace, and the olive branch is also a symbol of peace. There was a local flood which the entire Orient has in it's cultures, and this caused a lot of nomadic tribes to fight each other for resources. Noah was commanded by God to grab two of every animal as to ensure none went extinct between the flood and desperate hunting. It would also serve as a peace offering if they came across mauraders. Being that he and his family were not allowed to eat meat, it wouldn't have been any real loss. Noah made peace with a tribe near Mt. Ararat, where they witnessed the first rainbow, which tells 'beauty after the storm'. You see, nomads had either died off or formed together in large tribes- the Orient had become governmental instead of lawless and scattered.


Critical thought is not based on presupposition, but taking Genesis literally presupposes that the story is meant to be taken literally.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

The Creation events were oral traditions before they were written. From a literal perspective, I would wager that they were originally relayed through Noah to his family during or after the Flood. It also seems applicable that Noah would be told those accounts by God in that Noah would be responsible for the 're-creation' of Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

From the theistic evolutionist perspective, I would wager that the sequence of God's creations being so similar to the sequence of evolution of both the Big Bang and evolution are not a coincidence.

I would also wager that Noah's dove, who was sent out in search for land, corresponds with the story as a symbol of peace, and the olive branch is also a symbol of peace. There was a local flood which the entire Orient has in it's cultures, and this caused a lot of nomadic tribes to fight each other for resources. Noah was commanded by God to grab two of every animal as to ensure none went extinct between the flood and desperate hunting. It would also serve as a peace offering if they came across mauraders. Being that he and his family were not allowed to eat meat, it wouldn't have been any real loss. Noah made peace with a tribe near Mt. Ararat, where they witnessed the first rainbow, which tells 'beauty after the storm'. You see, nomads had either died off or formed together in large tribes- the Orient had become governmental instead of lawless and scattered.


Critical thought is not based on presupposition, but taking Genesis literally presupposes that the story is meant to be taken literally.

The Creation events were oral traditions before they were written. From a literal perspective, I would wager that they were originally relayed through Noah to his family during or after the Flood. It also seems applicable that Noah would be told those accounts by God in that Noah would be responsible for the 're-creation' of Earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

From the theistic evolutionist perspective, I would wager that the sequence of God's creations being so similar to the sequence of evolution of both the Big Bang and evolution are not a coincidence.

I would also wager that Noah's dove, who was sent out in search for land, corresponds with the story as a symbol of peace, and the olive branch is also a symbol of peace. There was a local flood which the entire Orient has in it's cultures, and this caused a lot of nomadic tribes to fight each other for resources. Noah was commanded by God to grab two of every animal as to ensure none went extinct between the flood and desperate hunting. It would also serve as a peace offering if they came across mauraders. Being that he and his family were not allowed to eat meat, it wouldn't have been any real loss. Noah made peace with a tribe near Mt. Ararat, where they witnessed the first rainbow, which tells 'beauty after the storm'. You see, nomads had either died off or formed together in large tribes- the Orient had become governmental instead of lawless and scattered.


Critical thought is not based on presupposition, but taking Genesis literally presupposes that the story is meant to be taken literally.

If we have no literal Genesis and hence fall. How then do you account for Jesus death on the cross and Paul's reference to wife submission based on the encounter of the serpent with Eve... and much more than that is referred too.

I mean the whole gospel message is built upon the literal fall of mankind and the need for the redeemer.. So now Jesus saves us from a figment of our imagination, since it's all made up, right.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

If we have no literal Genesis and hence fall. How then do you account for Jesus death on the cross and Paul's reference to wife submission based on the encounter of the serpent with Eve... and much more than that is referred too.

I mean the whole gospel message is built upon the literal fall of mankind and the need for the redeemer.. So now Jesus saves us from a figment of our imagination, since it's all made up, right.

Adam literally means 'red'. This name was chosen to be used in illustrating the complexion of men, and the Earth which God formed man. Red is generally considered the color of life, as it's the color of flesh and blood.

Adam and Eve do not need to be two people, they can be mankind collectively. When the story of Adam and Eve are used throughout the rest of the Bible, they are expounding on the fall from grace once mankind had established knowledge of good and evil. We had gained this knowledge, and started to become self-righteous. We were eventually cursed to sprawl the harshness of the Earth, dispersing from the relative harmony we had lived in as we separated from each other in enmity.

 

[veteran]

Obviously, there's a major disconnect between what people understand about the idea of science vs. the science God covers in His Word. I kind of get tired of ignorant people who keep categorizing the idea of 'science' like it's just philosophy and has no relation to God's Word. That is a false theological assumption by men's traditions, and they have a long tradition in Christ's Church, but no basis from God's Own Word. It's especially the pseudo-science pushers that have caused those to want to be ignorant of God's science in His Word, causing them to put all 'science' in the category of man's false pseudo-science. One has to be able to discern the difference between the two, God's science in His Word vs. man's pseudo-science. Not much of that discernment is being done here on this thread, which is why I keep referring to the idea of ignorance.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Adam literally means 'red'. This name was chosen to be used in illustrating the complexion of men, and the Earth which God formed man. Red is generally considered the color of life, as it's the color of flesh and blood.

Adam and Eve do not need to be two people, they can be mankind collectively. When the story of Adam and Eve are used throughout the rest of the Bible, they are expounding on the fall from grace once mankind had established knowledge of good and evil. We had gained this knowledge, and started to become self-righteous. We were eventually cursed to sprawl the harshness of the Earth, dispersing from the relative harmony we had lived in as we separated from each other in enmity.

Adam literally means 'red'. This name was chosen to be used in illustrating the complexion of men, and the Earth which God formed man. Red is generally considered the color of life, as it's the color of flesh and blood.

Adam and Eve do not need to be two people, they can be mankind collectively. When the story of Adam and Eve are used throughout the rest of the Bible, they are expounding on the fall from grace once mankind had established knowledge of good and evil. We had gained this knowledge, and started to become self-righteous. We were eventually cursed to sprawl the harshness of the Earth, dispersing from the relative harmony we had lived in as we separated from each other in enmity.

So, your salvation and god is a figment of your imagination. Well, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. Carry On.

Obviously, there's a major disconnect between what people understand about the idea of science vs. the science God covers in His Word. I kind of get tired of ignorant people who keep categorizing the idea of 'science' like it's just philosophy and has no relation to God's Word. That is a false theological assumption by men's traditions, and they have a long tradition in Christ's Church, but no basis from God's Own Word. It's especially the pseudo-science pushers that have caused those to want to be ignorant of God's science in His Word, causing them to put all 'science' in the category of man's false pseudo-science. One has to be able to discern the difference between the two, God's science in His Word vs. man's pseudo-science. Not much of that discernment is being done here on this thread, which is why I keep referring to the idea of ignorance.

A you a reader of Rousas John Rushdoony? I've certainly read a few of his books. In particular the "mythology of science".